Does anybody know if this will apply to the iPhone Amazon, Best Buy, etc apps that allow you to make physical purchases from their stores directly? If so , then this is the end of the line for me. I will only buy a Mac henceforth - no Apple IOS device.

Because the reason Sony and Amazon are currently bypassing the iOS Store for their downloads is to bypass Apple's pricing and any other restrictions Apple may have (eg. content). I don't see the 70/30 split continuing if they want to get serious about recurring subscriptions for the publication industry.

Seems pretty relevant to the article to me.

No, Sony or Amazon aren't bypassing anything. They have a store where they sell books and they can be read on a bunch of platforms.

You know, people not only use iPhones or iPads to read Kindle books.

So, why is relevant a subscription model for publications in this case?

This reeks of the same stuff back in the 80s when Microsoft tied IE to the operating system. Now iBookstore is tied to iOS and damn you if you want to use something else.

This is a terrible move. If apple doesn't want to allow competing stores I don't necessarily see a problem with that, but at the very least you should be able to make an app that lets you view content from other stores. Killing off the kindle app or sony will just force people who bought books on those platforms to seek devices other then apple's.

This is interesting for me because the last Sony DVD with a digital copy that I tried to download to one our Macs in the house, I wasn't able to do it. Sony had it locked down to its own devices or a PC. Maybe Apple is trying to use this as a bargaining chip to get Sony to open up and allow its content from a digital copy to play on a Mac. Maybe for Sony, what goes around comes around.

Not quite sure how I feel about all of this but I will wait until I hear the full story before I pass judgement. But Sony is a company that at present, I have very little sympathy for. My last several dealings with Sony have not been very good ones. I am not sure that we are getting the correct story at the present time, especially if the info is coming from Sony.

Apple was paid something -- they were paid when the user purchased the iDevice. Why does Apple deserve a cut of every other financial transaction made with the device? If I use an iPad's browser to pay my credit card bill, should Apple get a cut?

Stop being such a blind fanboy. Apple is way out of line on this one.

Stop being so stupid. Apple doesn't and shouldn't get a cut of all financial transactions. Apple should get a cut of any financial transaction (purchase) that results from Apple having and maintaining a webstore.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Stop being so stupid. Apple doesn't and shouldn't get a cut of all financial transactions. Apple should get a cut of any financial transaction (purchase) that results from Apple having and maintaining a webstore.

And which webstore is maintaining Apple when someone purchases an ebook from Amazon?

The story here ( and I know this independently of Sony) is that they are banning anything which shows content bought elsewhere.

The Sony screenshots show the store in Safari.

The story is accurate.

You keep saying you have knowledge of this practice occurring elsewhere. Seriously, I will sell my iPad if I can't use Kindle on it - Amazon's notes/annotation engine is critical to my work - but I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim, rather than insinuations.

What you're saying makes sense, but at the same time it's a little different in this case. In this case the consumer bought the device, so they should have a right to say what apps they want to put on the device.

In your analogy it's kind of like saying you're selling products in a store that someone else owns, and they want to put a competing product next to yours. That actually is how most businesses work... Multiple products that serve the same purpose.

It just gets confusing because Apple runs the App Store. You still own the iPhone/iPad/whatever though, so why wouldn't you be able to choose what you want on your device?

No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.

Hank might have rented the display and display space (the app), but he can't reasonably expect to never pay a cut to the store owner.

Or, it's a bit like you setting up a Coca Cola stand for an event, getting the whole setup with soda fountain and tanks and hoses and illuminated signs and cups and whole nine yards, but then stocking it with your own syrup. Coca Cola allows you to use all their stuff to make money selling concessions, but expects to make money on the syrup in every drink you sell. The user license would not allow you to put Pepsi Cola syrup in the drinks.

Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.

Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.

I don't know, but you said it had an in-app purchasing system, so I'm asking about which in-app purchase system was using.

"I'm reading that they can re-submit the app minus in-app purchasing."

Read the first sentence."Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"

All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.

No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.

So should iTunes pay Windows?

Quote:

Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.

Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.

The content is not in iTunes. The content is owned and distributed by Sony. Apple have nothing to do with the eReader content ( i.e. digital books). They neither have the rights or the distribution.

This is a seperate argument to Apple's banning any content outside the app store anyway. but in-app purchasing is a rip off. Anyway,

Read the first sentence."Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"

All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.

Read the first sentence."Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it"

All in-app purchase require a 30% cut. If Sony doesn't want to pay then stop using it. all other apps that doesn't use in-app purchasing, like Amazon, still functioning on my iPod Touch so if you have any hands-on experience contrary to what I have then please provide.

That's speculation. The app got rejected. Nobody knows for sure what it use or doesn't use but the message from Apple is all about in-app purchasing.
You will have a better use of your time by speculating something you know about, like Android.

No, what he is saying is that you own the store and you give a competing store space inside your doors. You have an Ace Hardware and you allow the proprietor of Hank's Harware down the street to put up a display of hammers right inside your tool department. Someone grabs one of his hammers instead of yours, purchases it at your till, and you don't get a cut.

Hank might have rented the display and display space (the app), but he can't reasonably expect to never pay a cut to the store owner.

Or, it's a bit like you setting up a Coca Cola stand for an event, getting the whole setup with soda fountain and tanks and hoses and illuminated signs and cups and whole nine yards, but then stocking it with your own syrup. Coca Cola allows you to use all their stuff to make money selling concessions, but expects to make money on the syrup in every drink you sell. The user license would not allow you to put Pepsi Cola syrup in the drinks.

Sony has content in iTunes: music and movies. If Sony wants to use Apples smooth system for delivery (native apps and in-app purchasing), then Apple expects Sony to link to that content and not directly to Sony's own store. If Sony wants to avoid selling their media through iTunes, then it can forego using the nice system Apple developed for it's developers and users.

Anyway, that would be the thinking, I suppose. Sounds like a pretty normal and reasonable business expectation to me.

This is a great analogy.

It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.

Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...

Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?

I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?

The screenshots don't prove Sony didn't use in-app purchasing.
No one have any evidence so far, including you. If you have iPhone and the app then please give us more detail. Google pictures without knowing anything mean nothing.

It's nice to see at least some people get it and realise that this whole thing is yet another tempest in a teapot generated by blog writers to get hits.

Another aspect to think about for those calling Apple "evil" this morning ...

Since Apple is perfectly okay with an app sending it's users to a web site to get content, it's the same thing as letting "Hanks Hammers" all have a big sticker on them that tells the prospective customer about "Hanks Hardware" down the street and how much better it is than the store they are currently shopping in! What more do people what them to do?

I dare anyone to find an instance of a real life bricks and mortar store that allows another competing store to stock products on it's shelves, and let's each one having a big advertisement for the second competing store. With iOS it's almost like giving the customers a free ride to the competitions store. And yet "Apple is evil" etc. WTF?

These examples are not making sense. Apple doesn't own the store, I own the store, I bought the iPad and it is mine. It now has become my store. I now invite Amazon into my store to sell its books. How does Apple have anything to do with it? Amazon purchased the rights to give away its app in the App Store so Apple got its cut there but after that they should have no say.

Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.

As well... "By doing so", Apple would open itself up to issue with apps decimating content that it may not want app to distribute (like pornography). Everything is a slippery slope.

Apple wouldnt put their stores on another platform. Can you imagine itunes on android? The problem here is that apple are more closed that communist russia and we all know what happened to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkwilson68

Apple, seriously, this is a step too far. Stop app developers from *linking out* to the internet to purchase things? iTunes doesn't stop you listening to music digitised from a CD - that you bought elsewhere. Pages doesn't stop you opening a research report purchased from a third party. You can even import a commercially purchased PDF in iBooks.

Seriously - I've owned everything from Apple for 20 years. Kindle accounts for 50% plus of the time I spend on my iPad. If that app goes, I won't trash my iPad, but I certainly won't be so keen to upgrade - and I know a stack of people who will simply not buy one and buy a kindle instead: a debate many people are having right now, and the kindle app is a big part of that decision.

Please Apple, I'm a big fan of the controlled experience, but don't do something *this* obnoxious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwydion

And why Apple has to be paid? Is delivering the content, is storing the content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdasd

The only excuse I think they have is that - maybe - tomorrow there will be a new model announced with the Daily and they are rejecting apps for now, so they can re-tool. As usual Apple is being secretive.

None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.

Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.

Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!

I was going to say that Kindle doesn't actually do in-app purchases, but relies on Amazon web site, from which you sync, but looking at it on my iPhone now see that you can actually buy in-app. Waddayaknow?
Still, I don't see Apple shutting off the Kindle spigot. The uproar would be too big.
Nevertheless, I did tell my wife to download Kindle App now just in case.

Too bad Amazon and Apple don't just get together to let iBook read Kindle format. I still can't believe this is that big of a money maker for AMZN compared to the content itself. And iBook is so much better that it would be a match made in heaven.

Apple has tightened restrictions on its iOS App Store by requiring all in-app purchases to go through it, resulting in the rejection of an eBookstore application from Sony, a new report claims.

The Cupertino, Calif., company has told applications developers, including Sony, that it will no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store, The New York Times reports.

According to the report, Apple rejected a Sony Reader iPhone application that would let users buy and read e-books from the Sony Reader Store. Steve Haber, president of Sony's digital reading division, said that Apple told Sony that from now on, in-app purchases must go through Apple.

Its the opposite of what we wanted to bring to the market, said Haber. We always wanted to bring the content to as many devices as possible, not one device to one store.

Rival ebook vendor Amazon could stand to lose. Amazon currently offers its Kindle e-book app on Apple's App Store, despite the fact that its Kindle e-reader competes with the iPad and iBookstore. The Kindle got an early start in the e-reading market, but has since lost significant ground to the iPad.

In December of last year, Amazon announced that the third-generation Kindle had become the best-selling product in the online retailer's history. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also noted at the time that many Kindle purchasers already own an LCD tablet, such as an iPad.

Analysts were taken aback by Apple's new restrictions, as they represent a shift away from recent attempts to be more collaborative.

Last fall, after receiving criticism for App Store restrictions that were viewed as "anti-competitive," Apple removed its ban on third-party development tools. With the more open licensing terms, Adobe resumed development of its Packager for iPhone tool for porting Flash to iOS.

Rival Google also gained from the changes, as its Google Voice application was accepted into the App Store. After Apple pulled Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps from the App Store, the US FCC launched an investigation of Apple and AT&T.

This sudden shift perhaps tells you something about Apples understanding of the value of its platform, said Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. Apple started making money with devices. Maybe the new thing that everyone recognizes is the unit of economic value is the platform, not the device.

Later this week, News Corp, in direct partnership with Apple, will unveil The Daily, an experimental iPad-only digital newspaper. Apple's new restrictions could be a preemptive move ahead of the launch of a new subscription feature for the iPad.

Apple has reportedly told several European publishers that it will employ "stricter rules" that forbid free iPad access to paid print subscribers. By doing so, publishers could bypass Apple and its 30 percent commission on App Store transactions.

You say Apple "has told" and then link to a completely un-researched New York Times article that simply accepts Sony's claim at face value. Perhaps you should rethink that sentence. It did a good job of creating an uproar in a completely non-story story.

None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.

Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.

Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!

So what about Windows demanding a 30% charge on all iTunes purchases?

the iPAd is an OS, not a "retail shop". For digital content owned by other people they dont own, store, sell, or distribute the product. What they sell is the credit card processing which any large distributor can handle on their own.